For this assignment, students will be expected to find and discuss.docx

For this assignment, students will be expected to find and
discuss online news articles published within the last 3 months
on any 7 of the following topics:
1. Interracial relationships
2. Homosexuality, bisexuality, or transexuality
3. Family violence
4. Adoption (any aspect)
5. Extra-marital sexuality
6. Births outside of marriage
7. Marriage trends/statistics
8. Blended families
9. Disciplining children
These articles may be from any online news source. Please keep
in mind that they must be news articles, not commentaries,
editorials, letters to the editor, book reviews, opinion pieces,
etc.
Provide the URL for each article you choose and clearly
identify each topic you are addressing. Be certain that you note
the source of each article including the APA-formatted citation
for each article.
For each item, write a brief essay (approximately 400-500
words) in which you do the following:
1. Write a brief summary of the article. This should only be a
short paragraph in length. The point is not to repeat everything
the article says but to pick out important points and those that
relate to information covered in class material.
2. Compare the information in your article with information on

that subject covered in your textbook (include page numbers
when appropriate). For example, does the information in the
article contradict or agree with information presented in your
text? How? Why? This is your chance to demonstrate that you
know the information on this topic presented in your course
material.
3. Discuss which theoretical perspective on the family, as
discussed in Chapter 2, is represented/applied in the article.
Analyze the topic using the related theory. (This is your
opportunity to demonstrate that you understand and can apply
the theoretical perspectives in your text.) CHAPTER 2 IS
ATTACHED
4. Conclude with your own thoughts on the news article. You
might include such thoughts as why this particular topic
interested you, if you were surprised by the news, or how you
think this issue should be handled by society and why. The
point of this part of your essay is to demonstrate that you have
reflected on this issue at some length.
As people struggle to understand family-related processes, they
develop theories. A theory is a set of statements that explains
why a particular phenomenon occurs. Theories drive research;
help us analyze our findings; and, ideally, offer solutions for
family problems.
One family sociologist compares theories to the fable of the six
blind men who felt different parts of an elephant and arrived at
different explanations of what elephants were like. The man
who felt the side of the elephant compared it to a massive,
immovable wall. The man who felt the trunk thought the
elephant was like a rope that could move large objects.
Similarly, different theories explain different aspects of the
elephant—in this case, families (Burr, 1995).

Of the dozen or so most influential family theories, let’s
consider eight that are the best known: two macro-level theories
(structural-functionalist and conflict), three theories that are
both micro- and macro-level (feminist, ecological, and
developmental), and three micro-level theories (symbolic
interactionist, social exchange, and family systems) that focus
on face-to-face interaction and personal dynamics (see Figure
2.1).
Researchers typically use more than one theoretical framework
in examining any given topic because each perspective involves
seeing the world differently. Because reality is complex, the
“coexisting theories concentrate on a different aspect of real
life” (Winton, 1995: 2). For greater clarity, let’s look at each
perspective separately. (Many social scientists use the terms
theories, theoretical perspectives, and theoretical frameworks
interchangeably.)
The Structural Functionalism Perspective
Structural-functional theory (often abbreviated to
functionalism) examines the relationship between the family
and the larger society. When functionalists study family
structure, they look at how the parts work together to fulfill the
functions or tasks necessary for the family’s survival. For
example, adult family tasks are best accomplished when spouses
carry out two distinct and specialized types of roles—
instrumental and expressive (Parsons and Bales, 1955).
FAMILY ROLES
The husband or father, the “breadwinner,” performs
instrumental roles: providing food and shelter for the family
and, at least theoretically, being hardworking, tough, and
competitive. The wife or mother plays the expressive roles of
the “homemaker”: providing the emotional support and
nurturing qualities that sustain the family unit and support the
husband or father. These family roles characterize what social
scientists call the traditional family, a family form that many
conservative groups would like to preserve (see Chapter 1).
These and other roles that family members play are functional.

That is, they preserve order, stability, and equilibrium. They
also provide the physical shelter and emotional support that
ensure a family’s health and survival. Anything that interferes
with these tasks is seen as dysfunctional because it jeopardizes
the family’s smooth functioning. For example, abuse of one
family member by another is dysfunctional because its negative
physical and emotional consequences threaten the family’s
continuity.
FIGURE 2.1 Major Theoretical Perspectives on the Family
FAMILY FUNCTIONS
According to many functionalists, there are two kinds of family
functions. Manifest functions are intended and recognized; they
are clearly evident. Latent functions are unintended and
unrecognized; they are not immediately obvious. Consider
weddings. The primary manifest function of the marriage
ceremony is to publicize the formation of a new family unit and
to legitimize sexual intercourse (see Chapter 1). Its latent
functions include communicating a hands-off message to past or
prospective sweethearts, outfitting the couple with household
goods through wedding gifts, and redefining family boundaries
to include in-laws or stepfamily members.
INSTITUTIONAL CONNECTIONS
Functionalists also note that the family affects and is affected
by other interrelated institutions, such as law, politics, and the
economy. For example, politicians (many of whom are lawyers
and businesspeople) play a major role in setting policies that
determine, among other things, whether a marriage is legal, who
can and cannot adopt a child, and which family members can
claim Social Security payments (see Chapter 1).
CRITICAL EVALUATION
Structural functionalism was a dominant perspective in the
1950s and 1960s, but later came under attack for being so
conservative in its emphasis on order and stability that it
ignored social change. For example, this perspective typically
sees divorce as dysfunctional and as signaling the disintegration

of the family rather than as indicating positive change (as when
individuals end an unhappy relationship).
Some critics maintain that functionalists shouldn’t assume that
just because some aspects of the family are functional, they
should be maintained (Ingoldsby et al., 2004). For instance,
expecting males to be instrumental and females to be expressive
places a burden on both sexes—including on fathers who are
laid off and mothers who are employed outside the home—
depending on what’s going on in the economy and the particular
stresses that families encounter.
Functionalism is useful in understanding families on a macro
level, but it doesn’t show how families interact on a daily basis.
It also doesn’t take into account that disagreements aren’t
necessarily dysfunctional but a normal part of family life. Also,
feminist scholars, especially, have criticized structural
functionalism for viewing the family narrowly through a white,
male, middle-class lens.
The Conflict Perspective
Another macro-level theory, the conflict perspective, has a long
history. It became popular in the late 1960s, when African
Americans and feminists started to challenge structural
functionalism as the dominant explanation of families and
marriages.
Conflict theory examines the ways in which groups disagree,
struggle for power, and compete for scarce resources such as
wealth and prestige. In contrast to structural functionalists,
conflict theorists see conflict and the resulting changes in
traditional roles as natural, inevitable, and often desirable.
Specifically, conflict theories have been useful in identifying
some of the inequities within and across families and promoting
structures and values that are less oppressive.
SOCIAL CLASS AND POWER
For conflict theorists, families perpetuate social stratification.
Those in high-income brackets have the greatest share of
capital, including wealth, that they can pass down to the next
generation. Such inheritances reduce the likelihood that all

families have equal opportunities or equal power to compete for
resources such as education, decent housing, and health care.
Unlike functionalists, conflict theorists see society not as
cooperative and stable but as a system of widespread inequality.
There is continuous tension between the haves and the have-
nots. The latter are mainly children, women, minorities, and the
poor. Much research based on conflict theory focuses on how
those in power—typically white, middle-aged, wealthy males—
dominate political and economic decision making in American
society.
FAMILY PROBLEMS
Conflict theorists view many family difficulties as resulting
from widespread societal problems rather than individual
shortcomings. For example, shifts in the U.S. economy have led
to a decline in manufacturing and the loss of many well-paying
blue-collar jobs. This has had a profound influence on many
families, sending some into a spiral of downward mobility.
We’ve seen unemployment rates double since 2005, and
taxpayers pay for the mismanagement and greed of corporations
that the U.S. government has rescued. Racial discrimination
also has a negative impact on many families, often blocking
their access to health services, education, and employment.
CRITICAL EVALUATION
Some social scientists criticize conflict theory for stressing
clashes and coercion at the expense of order and stability.
According to them, conflict theory presents a negative view of
human nature as selfish while neglecting the importance of love
and self-sacrifice, which characterize many family
relationships. Some critics also believe that the conflict
perspective is less useful than other approaches because it
emphasizes institutional constraints rather than personal choices
in everyday family life.
Another criticism is that conflict theorists don’t propose how
families can improve. Some family theories focus on solutions.
In contrast, conflict theories often address only competition,
power, control, and similar problems (Ingoldsby et al., 2004).

Feminist Perspectives
Feminist theories examine how gender roles—expectations
about how men and women should behave—shape relations
between the sexes in institutions such as politics, the economy,
religion, education, and the family. There are many types of
feminism, each with a slightly different emphasis (see, for
example, Lindsey, 2005, and Lorber, 2005). Despite these
variations, feminist family theories generally address gender
inequality, family diversity, and social change using both micro
and macro approaches.
Since you asked . . .
Can men be feminists?
GENDER INEQUALITY
According to Rebecca West, an English journalist and novelist
who died in 1983, “I myself have never been able to find out
precisely what feminism is; I only know that people call me a
feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me
from a doormat.” Any person—male or female, straight or gay—
who believes that both sexes should have equal political,
educational, economic, and other rights is a feminist, even if he
or she refuses to identify with this label.
A core issue for feminist family scholars (both women and men)
is gender inequality, both at home and in the workplace, and
how gender inequality intersects with race, ethnicity, and social
class. For example, the poorest older adults are most likely to
be minority women, and caregivers of the old—who are
predominantly women—must often leave their jobs or work only
part time to accommodate care-giving (Allen and Beitin, 2007;
Houser, 2007).
FAMILY DIVERSITY
Feminist family scholars, more than any other group, have been
instrumental in broadening our view of families. For these
scholars, limiting families to the traditional nuclear definition
excludes many other family forms such as long-term cohabiting
couples, single parents and their children, multiethnic families,
multigenerational families, same-sex families, stepfamilies, and

fictive kin (see Chapter 1).
EMPHASIS ON SOCIAL CHANGE
Since the early 1980s, feminist scholars have contributed to
family theory and social change in several ways:
■ They have pointed out that family perspectives should
include families from many cultures and ethnic groups as well
as interracial and interethnic families.
■ They have initiated legislation to deal with family violence
and have supported stiffer penalties for men who assault
children and women.
■ They have endorsed greater equality between husbands and
wives and have pushed for legislation that provides employed
women and men with parental leave rights (see Chapters 5 and
13).
■ They have refocused much of the research to include
fathers as involved, responsible, and nurturing family members
who have a profound effect on children and the family (see
Chapters 4 and 12).
CRITICAL EVALUATION
Feminists have challenged discriminatory peer review processes
that routinely exclude women from the old boy network.
According to some critics, however, many feminists are part of
an old girl network that has not always welcomed conflicting
points of view from African American, Latina, Asian American,
American Indian, Muslim, lesbian, and working-class women,
as well as from women with disabilities, in both research and
therapeutic settings (Almeida, 1994; Lynn and Todoroff, 1995;
S. A. Jackson, 1998).
Another criticism is that feminist family theorists focus
primarily on issues that affect women, and not men, and don’t
pay enough attention to other forms of oppression such as age,
disability, and religion (Ingoldsby et al., 2004). In terms of
ethnicity, for example, there is still considerably more
contemporary feminist scholarship on white and African
American families than on others, especially American Indian
and Middle Eastern families (see Chapter 4).

A third criticism is that feminists, by emphasizing diversity,
overlook commonalities that make families more similar than
different (Baca Zinn, 2000). A related issue is whether feminist
family theorists embrace only some types of diversity. For
example, some feminist scholars have a tendency to view full-
time homemakers as victims rather than as individuals who
happily choose this role (see Chapter 10).
The Ecological Perspective
Ecological theory examines how a family influences and is
influenced by its environment. Urie Bronfen-brenner (1979,
1986), a major advocate of ecological theory, proposed that four
interlocking systems mold our developmental growth.
INTERLOCKING SYSTEMS
These systems range from the most immediate settings, such as
the family and peer group, to more remote contexts in which a
child is not involved directly, such as technological changes and
ideological beliefs (see Figure 2.2). The four systems are the
following:
1. The microsystem, which is made up of the interconnected
behaviors, roles, and relationships that influence a child’s daily
life (such as parents’ toilet-training their child).
2. The mesosystem, which is composed of the relationships
among different settings (for example, the home, a day care
center, and schools). Parents interact with teachers and religious
groups; children interact with peers; health care providers
interact with both children and parents.
3. The exosystem, which consists of settings or events that a
child does not experience directly but that can affect her or his
development (such as parents’ employment).
4. The macrosystem, the wider society and culture that
encompasses all the other systems.
All four of these embedded systems, or environments, can help
or hinder a child’s development and a family’s functioning. For
example, successful drug-prevention programs should be
multifaceted: They must understand the teenager’s specific
family dynamics, address the unique needs of a particular

neighborhood, and involve local organizations (such as
churches, businesses, and colleges) to offer alternatives to high-
risk behavior. Such alternatives include not selling alcohol to
adolescents, providing education and support for parents, and
involving youth in meaningful community projects
(Bogenschneider, 1996).
CRITICAL EVALUATION
Ecological theory is useful in explaining family dynamics and
proposing programs to deal with issues such as youth violence
and special needs adoptions, but critics note several limitations.
Ecological theories try to explain growth as resulting from
changes in the environment, but explanations of disintegration
(such as aging) are notably absent. In addition, it is not always
apparent exactly how and when environments produce changes
in individuals and families. Finally, it’s unclear how the
interactions among the four systems affect nontraditional
families such as stepfamilies, gay and lesbian households, and
intergenerational families living under one roof. Because the
ecological perspective describes primarily nuclear,
heterosexual, and white families, some critics have wondered
how “nontraditional” families fit in (White and Klein, 2002;
Telleen et al., 2003; Schweiger and O’Brien, 2005).
The Family Development Perspective
Family development theory examines the changes that families
experience over their lifespans. This is the only theoretical
perspective that emerged out of a specific interest in families
and still focuses exclusively on the family (rather than the
relationships between unmarried couples, for example).
THE CLASSIC FAMILY LIFE CYCLE
Family development theory evolved over many decades (see
White and Klein, 2002, for a description of this evolution). One
of the earliest variations, still popular among many
practitioners, is Evelyn Duvall’s (1957) model of the family life
cycle.
The family life cycle consists of the transitions that a family
makes as it moves through a series of stages and events.

According to this classic model and others like it, the family
life cycle begins with marriage and continues through child
rearing, seeing the children leave home, retirement, and the
death of one or both spouses (see Table 2.1).
DEVELOPMENTAL TASKS CHANGE OVER TIME
As people progress through various stages and events of the
family life cycle, they accomplish developmental tasks. That is,
they learn to fulfill various role expectations and
responsibilities, such as showing affection and support for
family members and socializing with people outside the family.
Depending on our developmental stage, we learn to interact and
handle different challenges as we grow older. For example,
young children must deal with teasing, children ages 6 to 10
must cope with getting bad grades and bullying at school, older
children face pressure to use drugs, and 16- to 22-year-olds
report that their greatest difficulties are trouble at work and
school. For adults, the greatest source of stress is family
conflict. For many of the elderly, the biggest problems include a
decline in physical mobility, dependence on caregivers, and
paying for prescriptions and other living expenses (Ellis et al.,
2001).
Also, the family life course may differ greatly between poor and
middle-class families. As the “Kinscripts: Ensuring Family
Survival during Tough Times” box shows, poor families must be
especially creative and resilient to keep their members together
throughout the life course.
CRITICAL EVALUATION
Family development theories have generated a great deal of
research, especially on the internal dynamics of marital and
family interaction. Almost all the studies are micro level, but
some scholars have used the developmental approach to
examine patterns of family change cross-culturally and
historically (see Thornton, 2001). This perspective is especially
useful for therapists and practitioners who counsel families that
are experiencing problems such as constant arguments and

infidelity.
Critics point out several limitations, however. First, some
believe that the family life cycle stages are artificial because
“the processes of life are not always so neatly and cleanly
segmented” (Winton, 1995: 39). Second, despite the recent work
on kinscripts and extended families, most developmental
theories are limited to examining nuclear, heterosexual, and
non-divorced families. For example, gay and lesbian households
generally are excluded from family life course analyses (Laird,
1993).
A third criticism is that family development theory is largely
descriptive rather than explanatory (Ingoldsby et al., 2004). For
example, this perspective explores how developmental tasks
change over time, but not why some family members are more
successful than others in learning the necessary developmental
skills across a life course or why even white, nuclear, middle-
class families can vary quite a bit in parenting styles (see
Chapter 12).
Fourth, some critics question why developmental theories often
gloss over sibling relationships, which are among the most
important emotional resources we have throughout life and
especially after the last parent dies (McGoldrick et al., 1993).
Thus, some have concluded, family development theory still
“deals with a fairly small part of the elephant” (Burr, 1995: 81).
The Symbolic Interaction Perspective
Symbolic interaction theory looks at the everyday behavior of
individuals. Symbolic interactionists (sometimes abbreviated as
interactionists) examine how our ideas, beliefs, and attitudes
shape our daily lives, as well as those of our families. To a
symbolic interactionist, a father’s batting practice with his
daughter is not simply batting practice. It’s a behavior that
conveys messages such as “I enjoy spending time with you” or
“Girls can be good baseball players.”
SYMBOLS
The symbolic interaction perspective looks at subjective,
interpersonal meanings and how we communicate them using

symbols: words, gestures, or pictures that stand for something.
If we are to interact effectively, our symbols must have shared
meanings, or agreed-upon definitions. Such shared meanings
include wearing engagement and wedding rings, following time-
honored family traditions, and celebrating important events
such as birthdays and anniversaries.
SIGNIFICANT OTHERS
One of the most important shared meanings is the definition of
the situation, or the way we perceive reality and react to it.
Relationships often break up, for example, because partners
have different perceptions of the meanings of dating, love,
communication, and sex. As one of my students observed, “We
broke up because Dave wanted sex. I wanted intimacy and
conversation.” We typically learn our definitions of the
situation through interaction with significant others—people in
our primary groups, such as parents, friends, relatives, and
teachers—who play an important role in our socialization (see
Chapters 1 and 5).
FAMILY ROLES
According to symbolic interaction theory, each family member
plays more than one role. A man, for example, may be a
husband, father, grandfather, brother, son, uncle, and so on.
Roles are relational, or complementary, because they are
connected to other roles—mothers have children, brothers have
sisters, and aunts have nieces and nephews. Roles also carry
reciprocal rights and responsibilities. For instance, a mother
must care of her child and expects obedience. A child has the
right to be safe and fed, but is also expected to be courteous and
perform assigned tasks.
CRITICAL EVALUATION
One of the most common criticisms of symbolic interaction
theory is that it ignores macro-level factors that affect family
relationships. For example, families living in poverty, and
especially single mothers, are likely to be stigmatized and must
often raise their children in unsafe neighborhoods. Such
constraints increase stress, feelings of helplessness, and family

conflict—all of which can derail positive everyday interactions
(Seccombe, 2007).
Some critics also contend that interactionists overlook the
irrational and unconscious aspects of human behavior (LaRossa
and Reitzes, 1993). That is, people don’t always behave as
reflectively as symbolic interactionists assume. We often act
impulsively or make hurtful comments, for instance, without
weighing the consequences of our actions or words.
A third criticism is that because interactionists study primarily
white middle-class families—who are the most likely to
cooperate in research—the findings are rarely representative of
a wide range of racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups
(Winton, 1995). As a result, according to some critics,
interactionists may offer an unrealistic view of everyday family
life.
The Social Exchange Perspective
The fundamental premise of social exchange theory is that
people seek through their interactions with others to maximize
their rewards and to minimize their costs. As a result, most
people will continue in a relationship as long as there are more
benefits than losses. The union often ends if another
relationship offers more resources.
Why don’t people just leave romantic relationships or marriages
when they feel unloved?
WHAT RESOURCES DO WE EXCHANGE?
We bring to our relationships a variety of resources—some
tangible, some intangible—such as energy, money, material
goods, status, intelligence, control, good looks, youth, power,
talent, fame, or affection. People “trade” these resources for
more, better, or different assets that another person possesses.
And as long as the costs are equal to or lower than the benefits,
the exchanges will seem fair or balanced (see Chapters 8, 10,
and 14).
From a social exchange perspective, when the costs of a
marriage outweigh the rewards, the people may separate or

divorce. On the other hand, many people stay in unhappy
marriages or unions because the rewards seem equal to the
costs: “It’s better than being alone,” “I don’t want to hurt the
kids,” or “It could be worse.”
ARE OUR EXCHANGES CONSCIOUS?
Some of our cost-reward decisions are conscious, but many are
not. Some of the research on stepfamilies shows, for example,
that partners stay together even when they’re unhappy because
it seems easier to tolerate problems than discuss them, which
may create more difficulties. As a result, family members may
adapt to the existing situation rather than consciously seek a
more beneficial or rewarding relationship (see Chapter 16).
CRITICAL EVALUATION
Some critics have accused exchange theorists of putting too
much weight on rational behavior. People don’t always
calculate the potential costs and rewards of every decision. For
example, Linda, one of my students, spent every Saturday (the
only day she wasn’t working or in class) driving from Baltimore
to Philadelphia to visit a grandmother who had Alzheimer’s
disease (see Chapter 17). Linda’s mother and several nurses’
aides were providing good care for the grandmother, who often
didn’t recognize her. Nevertheless, Linda gave up her date night
because “I want to make sure Grandma is OK.” In this and other
cases, genuine love and concern for others can override sensible
cost-benefit decisions.
Exchange theory is also limited to explaining behavior that is
motivated by immediate costs or rewards. In many ethnic
groups, family duties take precedence over individual rights.
Traditional Asian cultures stress filial responsibility, which
requires children, especially sons, to make sacrifices for the
well-being of their parents and siblings (Hurh, 1998; Do, 1999).
Similarly, many Middle Eastern families teach children to value
family harmony rather than “me first” benefits (see Chapter 4).
The Family Systems Perspective
Family systems theory views the family as a functioning unit
that solves problems, makes decisions, and achieves collective

goals. The emphasis is not on individual family members but on
how the members interact within the family system, how they
communicate, how family patterns evolve, and how individual
personalities affect family members (Rosenblatt, 1994; Day,
1995).
WHAT HOLDS FAMILIES TOGETHER?
Family systems analysts are interested in the implicit or explicit
rules that hold families together. A key concept is equilibrium.
That is, a change in one part of the family or the external
environment sets in motion an adjustment process to restore the
family to the way it was in the past—to regain equilibrium.
Thus, during stressful times such as illness, unemployment, or
the death of a loved one, family members must make changes
and adapt so that the family can keep on going (Broderick,
1993).
CRITICAL EVALUATION
Some critics maintain that family systems theory has generated
a lot of terminology but little insight into how the family really
functions. Also, because the perspective originated in the study
of dysfunctional families in clinical settings, some question
whether the theory can be applied to healthy families. Finally,
because much of research is based on case studies, the results
are limited because they can’t be generalized to larger groups
(Holman and Burr, 1980; Nye and Berardo, 1981; Day, 1995).
Combining Theories
We’ve looked at eight of the major family theories separately,
but researchers and clinicians often combine several of these
perspectives to interpret data or choose intervention strategies.
For example, a counselor might draw on social exchange,
symbolic interaction, development, and systems theories to shed
light on the problems in a couple’s relationship.
Counselors who work with children with attention deficit
hyperactivity disorders (ADHD) typically combine ecological
and family systems perspectives in conducting assessments and
developing interventions (Bernier and Siegel, 1994). Instead of
simply focusing on the child or the family, clinicians usually

observe the child in his or her natural environment, involve the
child’s teacher, and educate grandparents about ADHD. Thus,
both researchers and practitioners often rely on several theories
to explain or respond to family-related issues.
We turn next to the ways that researchers design studies and
collect information about families.
MAKING CONNECTIONS
■ Return to Table 2.1 (p. 36) for a moment. Does this model
illustrate your family of orientation? What about your family of
procreation? If not, how have the stages you’ve experienced
been different?
■ Why does your family behave the way it does? Which
theory or theories seem to be the most useful to you in
answering this question? Why?
FAMILY RESEARCH METHODS
Why are we attracted to some people and not to others? Why are
young adults postponing marriage? Why have divorce rates
recently declined? To answer these and other questions about
the family, social scientists typically use six major research
methods: surveys, clinical research, field research, secondary
analysis, experiments, and evaluation research. (Table 2.2
provides a summary of these data collection methods.)
TABLE 2.2 Six Common Data Collection Methods in Family
Research
Method
Strengths
Limitations
Surveys
Fairly inexpensive and simple to administer; interviews have
high response rates; findings often can be generalized to the
whole population.
Mailed questionnaires may have low response rates; respondents
may be self-selected; interviews usually are expensive.
Clinical research
Helps people who are experiencing family problems; offers
insights for theory development.

Usually time consuming and expensive; findings can’t be
generalized.
Field research
Flexible; offers deeper understanding of family behavior; can be
expensive or inexpensive depending on the project’s scope and
location.
Difficult to quantify and to maintain observer-participant
boundaries; the observer may be biased or judgmental; findings
can’t be generalized.
Secondary analysis
Usually accessible, convenient, and inexpensive; often
longitudinal and historical.
Information may be incomplete; some documents may be
inaccessible; some data cannot be collected over time.
Experiment
Attempts to demonstrate cause and effect; usually inexpensive;
many available participants; can be replicated.
Volunteers and paid participants aren’t representative of larger
populations; artificial laboratory setting.
Evaluation research
Usually inexpensive; valuable in real-life applications.
Often political; may entail training many staff members.
Peanuts: © United Feature Syndicate, Inc.
Family researchers also rely on qualitative and quantitative
approaches. In qualitative research, social scientists examine
nonnumerical material that they then interpret. Examples of
qualitative data include verbal or written narratives, letters,
diaries, photographs, and other images such as Internet ads. In
quantitative research, researchers focus on a numerical analysis
of people’s responses or specific characteristics. Examples
include collecting or examining data on the attitudes and
experiences of people who live together, family size, and age at
first marriage.
Neither method is inherently better or worse than the other, but
each depends on the research questions. For instance, if you

wanted in-depth information on grandparents who are raising
their grandchildren, you’d use qualitative methods. If, on the
other hand, you wanted to find out whether the number of
grandparents who are raising their children has increased over
the years, you’d use quantitative methods. Or, if you were
interested in both questions, you’d use both methods.
Surveys
Researchers use surveys to systematically collect data from
respondents through questionnaires or interviews. Before the
data collection begins, researchers must first decide on the
population and sample.
POPULATIONS AND SAMPLES
A population is any well-defined group of people (or things)
that researchers want to know something about. Obtaining
information from a population is problematic because the
population (such as parents of preschool children with
disabilities) may be so large that it would be too expensive and
time consuming to interview every person. In other cases—such
as obtaining the membership lists of religious groups or social
clubs—it may be impossible even to identify the population we
would like to study.
Because they’ve never contacted me, my family, or my friends,
how can pollsters draw conclusions about our behavior or
attitudes?
To avoid these problems, researchers typically select a sample,
a group of people (or things) that are representative of the
population they want to study. In a probability sample, each
person (or thing) has an equal chance of being chosen because
the selection is random. Researchers often get probability
samples through random-digit dialing, which involves selecting
area codes and exchanges followed by four random digits. In a
procedure called computer-assisted telephone interviewing
(CATI), the interviewer uses a computer to select random
telephone numbers, reads the questions to the respondent from a
computer screen, and then keys the replies into pre-coded

spaces. Because the selection is random, the findings can be
generalized to the population from which the sample was drawn.
In a nonprobability sample, researchers use other criteria, such
as convenience or the availability of participants. The findings
can’t be generalized to any group because the people (or things)
have not been selected randomly; that is, they have not had an
equal chance of being selected for the study.

For this assignment, students will be expected to find and discuss.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to For this assignment, students will be expected to find and discuss.docx

Similar to For this assignment, students will be expected to find and discuss.docx (20)

More from AKHIL969626

More from AKHIL969626 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

For this assignment, students will be expected to find and discuss.docx